Top 10 2024 First Round Picks = Which 2025 Pick?

[NYG]

In a 1 for 1 deal, what would be the earliest 2025 pick each player could net in return?

Zaccharie Risacher
Alex Sarr
Reed Sheppard
Stephon Castle
Ron Holland II
Tidjane Salaun
Donovan Clingan
Rob Dillingham
Zach Edey
Cody Williams

[HornetJail]

I think every one of these players is outside the top 5. Are Castle and Edey the only two players that even met pre-draft expectations (which were already quite low for this class)?

Salaun is probably a legitimate negative on his 7-8M per year rookie contract Won't put words in the mouths of Jazz fans but from the outside, Cody Williams is probably close to that as well right?

[Texas Chuck]

I think Castle and Risacher are worth top 5 picks, maybe as high as 3. Edey and Sarr should return a lottery pick. Maybe Sheppard or Clingan still do as well. Dillingham and Holland return a first of some kind. Salaun and Williams probably don't return anything. Maybe a very late 2nd for a team with plenty of tax room and empty roster spots.

[babyjax13]

I wouldn't trade 5 for any of them. Certainly a good chance some of the tip 5 busts and you regret it in hindsight.

[ReggiesKnicks]

I'd probably trade #3 for Risacher. I'm a bit lower on Castle but could see him traded for #3 but also think a few of the higher ceiling prospects past #2 have more variance and/or upside.

Williams and Salaun return nothing.

Dillingham, Clingan, Edey and Holland return a non-lottery 1st.

Sheppard and Sarr return a lottery 1st.

[Mavrelous]

Castle and Risacher #4 or #5
Sheppard, Sarr, Ware, Clingan and Edey should return a late lottery pick
Dillingham and Holland are borderline lottery...

Salaun and Williams should be regarded as bad money expiring at this point, haven't shown enough to justify their rookie scale deal...

[Daddy 801]

Last years draft seems to have blown. As a Jazz fan I am not interested in trading for any of those. Rather take the risk on what seems a deeper draft. Could end up being wrong obviously, but not excited about a trade for those guys. One of those guys and another pick coming back…maybe.

[brackdan70]

This draft is a lot, lot, lot better than last years.
Top 7 are head and shoulders above any of these guys without a doubt IMO
After that maybe You can start mixing in a couple of the top 2024 guys.
If I had a top 10 pick I would not trade it for any of the 2024 guys.
To me Noa Essengue compares favorably to Richaser.
Mulach has more upside than any of the 2024 bigs, and clearly the top of the draft is much better with college guys.
This draft also seems so much deeper.

[brackdan70]

Zaccharie Risacher - 7-10
Alex Sarr 20+
Reed Sheppard 20+
Stephon Castle- 7-10
Ron Holland II -15-20
Tidjane Salaun- No value
Donovan Clingan -15-20
Rob Dillingham- late first
Zach Edey 15-20
Cody Williams- no value

[wemby]

Castle is not top 2 but absolutely top 5, where in the 3-5 range depends on fit and preferences I guess, so anywhere in there is defensible. However, saying you'd have him 6+ means you'd have Knueppel, Maluach, Jakucionis, Fears, Queen over him, which is laughable IMO. As for the rest, honestly I don't think anyone 6+ in 2005 is clearly above the top prospects of last year, I'd probably have Risacher no lower than 6 and Sarr no lower than 7.

[SkyHook]

Castle is not top 2 but absolutely top 5, where in the 3-5 range depends on fit and preferences I guess, so anywhere in there is defensible. However, saying you'd have him 6+ means you'd have Knueppel, Maluach, Jakucionis, Fears, Queen over him, which is laughable IMO. As for the rest, honestly I don't think anyone 6+ in 2005 is clearly above the top prospects of last year, I'd probably have Risacher no lower than 6 and Sarr no lower than 7.

Castle is the worst ROY statistically in over four decades. Worse than MCW; the two are eerily comparable. Thinking that he's even remotely special is laughable IMO.

[wemby]

Castle is not top 2 but absolutely top 5, where in the 3-5 range depends on fit and preferences I guess, so anywhere in there is defensible. However, saying you'd have him 6+ means you'd have Knueppel, Maluach, Jakucionis, Fears, Queen over him, which is laughable IMO. As for the rest, honestly I don't think anyone 6+ in 2005 is clearly above the top prospects of last year, I'd probably have Risacher no lower than 6 and Sarr no lower than 7.

Castle is the worst ROY statistically in over four decades. Worse than MCW; the two are eerily comparable. Thinking that he's even remotely special is laughable IMO.

BS. What are those statistics that rate himi as such? People usually bring up scoring efficiency (Castle had a 52.2 TS%) and ignore that he's a one and done guard, those usually always struggle with that, take Cade Cunningham (50.4% and 49.2% his first two seasons) as a reference, or Garland (49.8% TS), or just about any other one and done guard.

Also, restricting the comparison to past ROYs is silly, as if every prospect 3-5 was expected to be better than them as well. Banchero had a 52.9% TS his rookie year which for a big is worse than Castle's. Value comes in context and, as a 20 year old rookie guard, Castle has shown enough (pretty much everywhere other than 3 pt shooting) that I think lots of GMs would easily move a 3-5 pick for him.

[daoneandonly]

I think Castle has value as high as #3. The others, probably past top 8 onwards

[SkyHook]

Castle is not top 2 but absolutely top 5, where in the 3-5 range depends on fit and preferences I guess, so anywhere in there is defensible. However, saying you'd have him 6+ means you'd have Knueppel, Maluach, Jakucionis, Fears, Queen over him, which is laughable IMO. As for the rest, honestly I don't think anyone 6+ in 2005 is clearly above the top prospects of last year, I'd probably have Risacher no lower than 6 and Sarr no lower than 7.

Castle is the worst ROY statistically in over four decades. Worse than MCW; the two are eerily comparable. Thinking that he's even remotely special is laughable IMO.

BS. What are those statistics that rate himi as such? People usually bring up scoring efficiency (Castle had a 52.2 TS%) and ignore that he's a one and done guard, those usually always struggle with that, take Cade Cunningham (50.4% and 49.2% his first two seasons) as a reference, or Garland (49.8% TS), or just about any other one and done guard.

Also, restricting the comparison to past ROYs is silly, as if every prospect 3-5 was expected to be better than them as well. Banchero had a 52.9% TS his rookie year which for a big is worse than Castle's. Value comes in context and, as a 20 year old rookie guard, Castle has shown enough (pretty much everywhere other than 3 pt shooting) that I think lots of GMs would easily move a 3-5 pick for him.

Pick ANY advanced stat on bbref: VORP, BPM, WS/48. He's the worst ROY in over four decades.

[wemby]

Pick ANY advanced stat on bbref: VORP, BPM, WS/48. He's the worst ROY in over four decades.

That's your typical run-of-the-mill, didn't watch Castle play take. Advanced stats on tanking teams mean nothing, you think a winning team would have allowed Castle to shoot over 4 3PA per game at 28%? Of course not.

Rookies, especially young guards, will almost always have poor advanced stats. The exception might be players with defined roles (rim running bigs, 3&D wings) that go to better teams and have lower usage, which was the opposite of Castle's situation.

[brackdan70]

Castle is not top 2 but absolutely top 5, where in the 3-5 range depends on fit and preferences I guess, so anywhere in there is defensible. However, saying you'd have him 6+ means you'd have Knueppel, Maluach, Jakucionis, Fears, Queen over him, which is laughable IMO. As for the rest, honestly I don't think anyone 6+ in 2005 is clearly above the top prospects of last year, I'd probably have Risacher no lower than 6 and Sarr no lower than 7.

Edgecombe, Johnson, Maluach I have clearly over him. Better prospects, better in College, higher upsides imo.
Fears and the others are in the same tier with Castle I think.

[Ball4life32]

After Risacher came back from injury

Last 36 games:
14.8 ppg, 3.7rbg, 1.3 apg in only 25.5 mpg on 51 FG% / 41 3pt%

And was 19 most of his rookie year. I would not trade him for 5+ rookies in this class.

[gswhoops]

Ranking them strictly as prospects, I wouldn't have any of them ahead of this year's top 5 (Flagg, Harper, Bailey, Edgecombe, Tre). But I think I'd have Sarr, Risacher, and Castle all ahead of #6.

[wemby]

Castle is not top 2 but absolutely top 5, where in the 3-5 range depends on fit and preferences I guess, so anywhere in there is defensible. However, saying you'd have him 6+ means you'd have Knueppel, Maluach, Jakucionis, Fears, Queen over him, which is laughable IMO. As for the rest, honestly I don't think anyone 6+ in 2005 is clearly above the top prospects of last year, I'd probably have Risacher no lower than 6 and Sarr no lower than 7.

Edgecombe, Johnson, Maluach I have clearly over him. Better prospects, better in College, higher upsides imo.
Fears and the others are in the same tier with Castle I think.

Edgecombe and Tre Johnson I have no problem with, even if I don't necessarily think are better prospects. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hornets offered the Spurs #4 for Castle, for instance.
Maluach has great measurables but plenty of concerns, he took advantage of playing next to Cooper Flagg, Kon Knueppel and a loaded Duke squad that spoon fed him buckets but when it mattered the most (game vs Houston) he was embarrasingly bad, with 0 rebounds in 21 minutes being 7'2", his hands are poor and his overall skill level needs to improve significantly for him to become anything more than an average center.
Fears is a smallish guard who is every bit as bad as a shooter as Castle, his ability to get to the rim is impressive but if he doesn't drastically iimprove his shooting and defense there's no guarantees he's going to make it in the league.
I wouldn't trade Castle for both of them combined, let alone a single one of them.
PS: saying Maluach (or Edgecombe) was better in college than Castle is quite the take... did you really watch them play? if so, it's hard to take you seriously.

[gswhoops]

Castle is not top 2 but absolutely top 5, where in the 3-5 range depends on fit and preferences I guess, so anywhere in there is defensible. However, saying you'd have him 6+ means you'd have Knueppel, Maluach, Jakucionis, Fears, Queen over him, which is laughable IMO. As for the rest, honestly I don't think anyone 6+ in 2005 is clearly above the top prospects of last year, I'd probably have Risacher no lower than 6 and Sarr no lower than 7.

Edgecombe, Johnson, Maluach I have clearly over him. Better prospects, better in College, higher upsides imo.
Fears and the others are in the same tier with Castle I think.

Edgecombe and Tre Johnson I have no problem with, even if I don't necessarily think are better prospects. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hornets offered the Spurs #4 for Castle, for instance.
Maluach has great measurables but plenty of concerns, he took advantage of playing next to Cooper Flagg, Kon Knueppel and a loaded Duke squad that spoon fed him buckets but when it mattered the most (game vs Houston) he was embarrasingly bad, with 0 rebounds in 21 minutes being 7'2", his hands are poor and his overall skill level needs to improve significantly for him to become anything more than an average center.
Fears is a smallish guard who is every bit as bad as a shooter as Castle, his ability to get to the rim is impressive but if he doesn't drastically iimprove his shooting and defense there's no guarantees he's going to make it in the league.
I wouldn't trade Castle for both of them combined, let alone a single one of them.
PS: saying Maluach (or Edgecombe) was better in college than Castle is quite the take... did you really watch them play? if so, it's hard to take you seriously.

Maluach tested pretty terribly at the combine, FWIW: https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA_Draft/comments/1kq7t6w/khaman_maluach_tested_terribly_at_the_combine/

He's big, but he's not a great athlete.